Indy Ref Part Deux

[JamboX2]

Why is that Scotland has to develop an economic model that no other Western country on the planet has in order to win the economic argument?

 

No one seems to worry about the Trillions of UK debt or multiple million deficit at any point on here. Yet Scottish independence comes up and suddenly everyone is talking about balanced books. Why the hypocrisy?

I think it's because Scotland would be a new borrower on international markets and they would look for concrete action at first to see progress made on debt.

 

The UK is a long established borrower which regularly meets it's repayments. Therefore it's debt is trusted to be met. No such history with Scotland.

[Space Mackerel]

Oh dear, terrible news this morning.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/spain-drops-plan-to-impose-veto-if-scotland-tries-to-join-eu?CMP=twt_gu

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[deesidejambo]

Oh dear, terrible news this morning.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/spain-drops-plan-to-impose-veto-if-scotland-tries-to-join-eu?CMP=twt_gu

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Indeed but follows by saying Scotland would need to reapply.

 

But the FoM and Euro issue are still there.

 

And are MSM not all liars?

[Space Mackerel]

Indeed but follows by saying Scotland would need to reapply.

 

But the FoM and Euro issue are still there.

 

And are MSM not all liars?

I think that's got to be up to 5 major Yoon myths busted on this thread.

 

What have you got left now?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[deesidejambo]

I think that's got to be up to 5 major Yoon myths busted on this thread.

 

What have you got left now?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Wait and reapply. Not going to be popular.

 

Accept the Euro. Not going to be popular.

 

Accept freedom of movement. Not going to be popular.

 

Accept Spanish access to fishing grounds. Not going to be popular

[Space Mackerel]

Wait and reapply. Not going to be popular.

 

Accept the Euro. Not going to be popular.

 

Accept freedom of movement. Not going to be popular.

 

Accept Spanish access to fishing grounds. Not going to be popular

Bar the Euro, which isn't happening as there is more than likely a Scottish quid to be introduced, that's pretty much what 63% voted to keep.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[deesidejambo]

Bar the Euro, which isn't happening as there is more than likely a Scottish quid to be introduced, that's pretty much what 63% voted to keep.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Correct me if wrong but have the EU not already stipulated new entrants must accept Euro?

[Space Mackerel]

Correct me if wrong but have the EU not already stipulated new entrants must accept Euro?

I think you better drop an email to the Scottish Growth Commission, they seem to have forgot this to be true

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[coconut doug]

I think you are conflating EU membership in the round - which 62% of people support - and support for freedom of movement - which Curtice's report shows Scots attitudes mirror the wider UK.

 

You could support EU membership, the single market and the rest but be against freedom of movement in principle. Which I believe is what is being shown here.

"conflating EU membership in the round"  I don't know what that means.

 

"You could support EU membership, the single market and the rest but be against freedom of movement in principle. Which I believe is what is being shown here" Indeed you could and it is entirely possible that many respondents answered the questions on FoM the way they did for that reason. However that question, as far as I can tell, was not asked. However you might know different and be able to show me where it was asked.

 

I also do not see how this threatens SNP policy since as far as I know there is no policy t support freedom of movement in principle. The SNP policy is for membership of the single market and FoM is a prerequisite of that.  The poll shows around 66% of Scottish voters in favour of this policy. This is a higher figure than that given for rUK. Almost all responses show Scotland being more enthusiastic towards the EU than rUK. Indeed the whole report shows Scotland is significantly different to rUK and it also shows most Scots don't think we should be taken out of the EU against our will so it seems to me that opinions expressed in this poll and SNP policy are a lot closer than Unionists want to admit.  

[coconut doug]

Wait and reapply. Not going to be popular.

 

Accept the Euro. Not going to be popular.

 

Accept freedom of movement. Not going to be popular.

 

Accept Spanish access to fishing grounds. Not going to be popular

Didn't you read the link you posted? 66% of Scots are in favour of FOM.

[deesidejambo]

Didn't you read the link you posted? 66% of Scots are in favour of FOM.

Other way round. Read it carefully.

[coconut doug]

Other way round. Read it carefully.

http://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/40KT-55A-Brx1t-r%C2%A3p0rt_V5.pdf

 

Table 6  and Table 9

[Space Mackerel]

http://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/40KT-55A-Brx1t-r%C2%A3p0rt_V5.pdf

 

Table 6 and Table 9

That must be deesides myth no 6 busted now?

[deesidejambo]

That must be deesides myth no 6 busted now?

Nope. Read it carefully and read Curtice explanation.

 

The 64% want EU citizens to have the same entry restrictions as non-EU i.e. Peeps from everywhere else in the world. I.e. No freedom of movement.

 

You are reading it incorrectly.

[SwindonJambo]

Why is that Scotland has to develop an economic model that no other Western country on the planet has in order to win the economic argument?

No one seems to worry about the Trillions of UK debt or multiple million deficit at any point on here. Yet Scottish independence comes up and suddenly everyone is talking about balanced books. Why the hypocrisy?

There's no hypocrisy. As a new state, Scotland would have a low Credit Rating so borrowing money would be extremely expensive until its currency is recognised and trusted. Once this happened and if the economy proves viable, a decent credit rating would follow and it could then borrow like anyone else. But that would take a good few years. In its early years, it would have to keep borrowing to an absolute minimum and that would mean big cuts. I'm not in doubt that it could do it but folks would have to brace themselves for some tough times in the early years at least. If people choose that fine and I hope it all goes as well as possible.

 

The UK gets away with it because it's currency is big player on the World Stage and it has a strong Credit Rating. Being the World's 5th or 6th biggest economy helps too. The same applies to the US, Germany, France and the other 'mature' economies. Although total debt is high at ?1.7tn The UK has cut its deficit to approx ?55-60bn or 3%. Scotland's is currently ?15bn/ 10%.

[JamboX2]

"conflating EU membership in the round" I don't know what that means.

By saying 62% of Scots voted remain doesn't mean unwavering support for every aspect of the EU or how the EU functions.

 

"You could support EU membership, the single market and the rest but be against freedom of movement in principle. Which I believe is what is being shown here" Indeed you could and it is entirely possible that many respondents answered the questions on FoM the way they did for that reason. However that question, as far as I can tell, was not asked. However you might know different and be able to show me where it was asked.

I don't know either. It would be my interpretation that such a question may have been asked to produce that result. It may be wise for the two of us to read the source report...

 

I also do not see how this threatens SNP policy since as far as I know there is no policy t support freedom of movement in principle. The SNP policy is for membership of the single market and FoM is a prerequisite of that. The poll shows around 66% of Scottish voters in favour of this policy. This is a higher figure than that given for rUK. Almost all responses show Scotland being more enthusiastic towards the EU than rUK. Indeed the whole report shows Scotland is significantly different to rUK and it also shows most Scots don't think we should be taken out of the EU against our will so it seems to me that opinions expressed in this poll and SNP policy are a lot closer than Unionists want to admit.

Well never really mentioned anything to that effect myself. But interesting thoughts. I agree that most Scots support single market membership and that FOM is part of that. However, I do not think you can presume the support for single market membership also equates to support for FOM. I support both, however that's not to say everyone else does. Which I think is what this report suggests.

 

However, I do not think it will do much on SNP policy which appears to be single market membership and all things attached to that. Most interesting thing is use of membership of the single market rather than EU membership. As both are quite different. Maybe opening up a move in policy to EFTA or EEA over full EU membership?

[coconut doug]

By saying 62% of Scots voted remain doesn't mean unwavering support for every aspect of the EU or how the EU functions.

 

 

I don't know either. It would be my interpretation that such a question may have been asked to produce that result. It may be wise for the two of us to read the source report...

 

 

Well never really mentioned anything to that effect myself. But interesting thoughts. I agree that most Scots support single market membership and that FOM is part of that. However, I do not think you can presume the support for single market membership also equates to support for FOM. I support both, however that's not to say everyone else does. Which I think is what this report suggests.

 

However, I do not think it will do much on SNP policy which appears to be single market membership and all things attached to that. Most interesting thing is use of membership of the single market rather than EU membership. As both are quite different. Maybe opening up a move in policy to EFTA or EEA over full EU membership?

By saying 62% of Scots voted remain doesn't mean unwavering support for every aspect of the EU or how the EU functions.

 

No it doesn't nor was that claimed. Nevertheless it is a giant leap of faith for No voters to claim Scots are against FoM when they voted to remain knowing FoM was part of that. What caused them to change their mind? Answer - they haven't

 

I don't know either. It would be my interpretation that such a question may have been asked to produce that result. It may be wise for the two of us to read the source report...

 

I think your assertion is entirely plausible. I say this because I have read the report and know what the questions are.

 

Well never really mentioned anything to that effect myself. But interesting thoughts. I agree that most Scots support single market membership and that FOM is part of that. However, I do not think you can presume the support for single market membership also equates to support for FOM. I support both, however that's not to say everyone else does. Which I think is what this report suggests.

 

No you didn't but Deeside and Curtice did. The most salient point of the report IMO was that 66% of scots are prepared to support FoM in the context of single market membership. It is the only logical position given the EU vote and it is entirely consistent with SNP policy. I linked tables in the report to show this. What I don't understand is how in that context Scottish voters are deemed by Deeside and Curtice to be at odds with Scottish govt policy. I know what Deeside is up to but what is Curtice's game?

.

 

[deesidejambo]

By saying 62% of Scots voted remain doesn't mean unwavering support for every aspect of the EU or how the EU functions.

 

No it doesn't nor was that claimed. Nevertheless it is a giant leap of faith for No voters to claim Scots are against FoM when they voted to remain knowing FoM was part of that. What caused them to change their mind? Answer - they haven't

 

I don't know either. It would be my interpretation that such a question may have been asked to produce that result. It may be wise for the two of us to read the source report...

 

I think your assertion is entirely plausible. I say this because I have read the report and know what the questions are.

 

Well never really mentioned anything to that effect myself. But interesting thoughts. I agree that most Scots support single market membership and that FOM is part of that. However, I do not think you can presume the support for single market membership also equates to support for FOM. I support both, however that's not to say everyone else does. Which I think is what this report suggests.

 

No you didn't but Deeside and Curtice did. The most salient point of the report IMO was that 66% of scots are prepared to support FoM in the context of single market membership. It is the only logical position given the EU vote and it is entirely consistent with SNP policy. I linked tables in the report to show this. What I don't understand is how in that context Scottish voters are deemed by Deeside and Curtice to be at odds with Scottish govt policy. I know what Deeside is up to but what is Curtice's game?

.

 

It's because, as I've tried to tell you before, the 64% are against FOM, not for.

 

Try to accept, 64% of those in this poll say they want EU members to have the same restrictions as the rest of the world. Only 22% oppose this, i.e. they want FOM.

 

That is why Curtice interprets it as he does. Please look at the poll and try to accept that this is what it says, not the other way round.

 

Once you accept this you will understand what Curtice is saying.

[coconut doug]

It's because, as I've tried to tell you before, the 64% are against FOM, not for.

 

Try to accept, 64% of those in this poll say they want EU members to have the same restrictions as the rest of the world. Only 22% oppose this, i.e. they want FOM.

 

That is why Curtice interprets it as he does. Please look at the poll and try to accept that this is what it says, not the other way round.

 

Once you accept this you will understand what Curtice is saying.

Of course voters would want EU members to have the same restrictions as non EU. The question is being asked out of the EU context

 

The 64% you refer to are those who would not want FoM after a hard Brexit i.e no free trade. A significant majority of Scots want or are prepared to accept FoM in conjunction with membership of the single market. You cannot have membership of the single market without FoM. Asking a question about whether you want FoM after a hard Brexit reveals nothing. Nobody, as far as I know, is proposing that Scotland should retain FoM after a hard Brexit. It is not government policy. This is http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/12/9234

 

You stated  The recent Curtice report based on independent polling that showed only 22% of Scots support Nicolas cornerstone point of grievance with Brexit: the free movement of people within the EU.

 

So now what does she do?  Continue banging on about it in the knowledge it is not a vote-winner and never will be, or perform a "screeching U-turn".

 

If you read the govt report you will see that FoM is not the cornerstone. It is membership of the single market and Nicola like everybody else who takes an interest knows that you can't have it without FoM. In that context it is a winner with more than 60% of people in the country supporting that stance, so no screeching u turn. 

 

Strangely in your next post you say this Nicola has been adamant that in the Brexit negotiations Freedom of Movement must be retained for Scotland in either EU or Single Market. Which is of course correct and the only circumstances in which FoM is supported.

 

But then you go and lose it again stating this  But it appears, if you believe polls of course, that the significant majority of the Scottish population do not want FoM but presumably would still welcome access to the single market., which is what Theresa May is driving for.  You cannot have membership of the single market  without FoM and the polls show this.

 

Table 13 in Curtice's report shows 61% support for single market and FoM in Scotland with only 54% for GB. This is a significant difference in attitude between Scotland and rUk and is totally in line with SNP policy.

 

Asking people about their attitude to FoM is neither relevant nor sensible without the context of the single market.

[deesidejambo]

Of course voters would want EU members to have the same restrictions as non EU. The question is being asked out of the EU context

 

The 64% you refer to are those who would not want FoM after a hard Brexit i.e no free trade. A significant majority of Scots want or are prepared to accept FoM in conjunction with membership of the single market. You cannot have membership of the single market without FoM. Asking a question about whether you want FoM after a hard Brexit reveals nothing. Nobody, as far as I know, is proposing that Scotland should retain FoM after a hard Brexit. It is not government policy. This is http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/12/9234

 

You stated  The recent Curtice report based on independent polling that showed only 22% of Scots support Nicolas cornerstone point of grievance with Brexit: the free movement of people within the EU.

 

So now what does she do?  Continue banging on about it in the knowledge it is not a vote-winner and never will be, or perform a "screeching U-turn".

 

If you read the govt report you will see that FoM is not the cornerstone. It is membership of the single market and Nicola like everybody else who takes an interest knows that you can't have it without FoM. In that context it is a winner with more than 60% of people in the country supporting that stance, so no screeching u turn. 

 

Strangely in your next post you say this Nicola has been adamant that in the Brexit negotiations Freedom of Movement must be retained for Scotland in either EU or Single Market. Which is of course correct and the only circumstances in which FoM is supported.

 

But then you go and lose it again stating this  But it appears, if you believe polls of course, that the significant majority of the Scottish population do not want FoM but presumably would still welcome access to the single market., which is what Theresa May is driving for.  You cannot have membership of the single market  without FoM and the polls show this.

 

Table 13 in Curtice's report shows 61% support for single market and FoM in Scotland with only 54% for GB. This is a significant difference in attitude between Scotland and rUk and is totally in line with SNP policy.

 

Asking people about their attitude to FoM is neither relevant nor sensible without the context of the single market.

 

 

So you are saying Curtice has got his analysis completely wrong?  You should post a comment on whatscotlandthinks to tell him how silly he is.

 

I prefer to go with Curtice analysis - 

 

"The results will doubtless come as a surprise to many. For it seems that despite the way Scotland voted in the EU referendum, attitudes north of the border towards the shape of Brexit are not so different after all. In particular, rather than endorsing freedom of movement, it seems that most voters in Scotland, just like their counterparts elsewhere, would like to maintain free trade but abandon freedom of movement. As a result, it seems that their position is much closer to that of the UK government than that of the Scottish Government."

 

I recommend all to read the full Curtice analysis and take what they want from it.

 

Nite nite all.

[Space Mackerel]

So you are saying Curtice has got his analysis completely wrong? You should post a comment on whatscotlandthinks to tell him how silly he is.

 

I prefer to go with Curtice analysis -

 

"The results will doubtless come as a surprise to many. For it seems that despite the way Scotland voted in the EU referendum, attitudes north of the border towards the shape of Brexit are not so different after all. In particular, rather than endorsing freedom of movement, it seems that most voters in Scotland, just like their counterparts elsewhere, would like to maintain free trade but abandon freedom of movement. As a result, it seems that their position is much closer to that of the UK government than that of the Scottish Government."

 

I recommend all to read the full Curtice analysis and take what they want from it.

 

Nite nite all.

Doesn't change the fact that Scotland WILL vote for Indy next time.

[frankblack]

Doesn't change the fact that Scotland WILL vote for Indy next time.

Nope. Yes vote will be reduced if a vote happens.

[AlphonseCapone]

There's no hypocrisy. As a new state, Scotland would have a low Credit Rating so borrowing money would be extremely expensive until its currency is recognised and trusted. Once this happened and if the economy proves viable, a decent credit rating would follow and it could then borrow like anyone else. But that would take a good few years. In its early years, it would have to keep borrowing to an absolute minimum and that would mean big cuts. I'm not in doubt that it could do it but folks would have to brace themselves for some tough times in the early years at least. If people choose that fine and I hope it all goes as well as possible.

 

The UK gets away with it because it's currency is big player on the World Stage and it has a strong Credit Rating. Being the World's 5th or 6th biggest economy helps too. The same applies to the US, Germany, France and the other 'mature' economies. Although total debt is high at ?1.7tn The UK has cut its deficit to approx ?55-60bn or 3%. Scotland's is currently ?15bn/ 10%.

I get what you are saying there. How did the likes of Bosnia pull it off initially though?

 

I don't think any Yes supporter is under the illusion, except the mental ones (no jokes on that being all Yes voters...), that if independence happens, the first years will be tough. I liken it to when I first left my parents, money was tight, didn't necessarily know how everyone worked, made some mistakes but ultimately I wouldn't change that independence for the world.

 

Tbf, the UK deficit was meant to be almost gone, that's why we were going through "austerity " so it's a good job they built up their credit rating when they did because they seem to be terrible with money these days. But I still think there is merit in the argument that in order to really tackle the economic problems Scotland has just now, it needs control of all the levers.

[coconut doug]

So you are saying Curtice has got his analysis completely wrong?  You should post a comment on whatscotlandthinks to tell him how silly he is.

 

I prefer to go with Curtice analysis - 

 

"The results will doubtless come as a surprise to many. For it seems that despite the way Scotland voted in the EU referendum, attitudes north of the border towards the shape of Brexit are not so different after all. In particular, rather than endorsing freedom of movement, it seems that most voters in Scotland, just like their counterparts elsewhere, would like to maintain free trade but abandon freedom of movement. As a result, it seems that their position is much closer to that of the UK government than that of the Scottish Government."

 

I recommend all to read the full Curtice analysis and take what they want from it.

 

Nite nite all.

The number of people supporting or endorsing FoM in Scotland is almost exactly the same as the % voting remain. See table 13. The figure for Scotland is significantly higher than that for GB (7%).

 

The 7% differential shows that the position is absolutely not "much closer to that of the UK government than that of the Scottish Government."

 

Nobody is arguing for "free trade" or single market membership without FoM, the analysis is flawed.

[Randle P McMurphy]

There's no hypocrisy. As a new state, Scotland would have a low Credit Rating so borrowing money would be extremely expensive until its currency is recognised and trusted. Once this happened and if the economy proves viable, a decent credit rating would follow and it could then borrow like anyone else. But that would take a good few years. In its early years, it would have to keep borrowing to an absolute minimum and that would mean big cuts. I'm not in doubt that it could do it but folks would have to brace themselves for some tough times in the early years at least. If people choose that fine and I hope it all goes as well as possible.

 

The UK gets away with it because it's currency is big player on the World Stage and it has a strong Credit Rating. Being the World's 5th or 6th biggest economy helps too. The same applies to the US, Germany, France and the other 'mature' economies. Although total debt is high at ?1.7tn The UK has cut its deficit to approx ?55-60bn or 3%. Scotland's is currently ?15bn/ 10%.

Keep posting speculation, made up facts and bullshit and I'll keep calling you out. Confirmation please?

Any response on your Scottish 200k public sector job loss comment whilst we're at it?

 

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

[Space Mackerel]

Nope. Yes vote will be reduced if a vote happens.

But but but we are on 48% at least right now?

 

And there's this too:

 

[SwindonJambo]

Keep posting speculation, made up facts and bullshit and I'll keep calling you out. Confirmation please?

Any response on your Scottish 200k public sector job loss comment whilst we're at it?

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

U.K.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance

 

Scotland

 

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

[Space Mackerel]

U.K.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance

 

Scotland

 

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

Too wee, too poor, too stupid...again.

 

Do you know that that EU puts money in to such banana republics such as ours to to help them join the EU? [emoji2]

[SwindonJambo]

 

 

 

Keep posting speculation, made up facts and bullshit and I'll keep calling you out. Confirmation please?

Any response on your Scottish 200k public sector job loss comment whilst we're at it?

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk

 

Public Sector Employment:

 

UK

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/03/7911

 

5.436million

 

Scotland's expected share based on its population of 5.3.million to the UK's 65 million

 

0.443 million

 

Scotland's actual.

 

0.542million

 

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/03/7911

 

I put my hand up and admit I made my point about Public Sector Employment very poorly, for which apologies. A quick calculation on these figures shows that Scotland has around 100,000 more than its population share employed in the Public Sector. Still a lot and my General point stands - Scotland's Public Sector is very big and would be very expensive to maintain, almost certainly requiring big cuts but thankfully it's 100,000 and not the 200,000 I was told by an ex Civil Servant.

 

I am not totally against Scotland breaking away at some point but it has to happen when it's economy is strong and at least equalling rUK in performance. At the moment it most certainly is not sadly.

[SwindonJambo]

Too wee, too poor, too stupid...again.

Do you know that that EU puts money in to such banana republics such as ours to to help them join the EU? [emoji2]

Yes I do. Do you know that the EU's budget for doing so will by drastically cut by the loss of its 2nd biggest contributor, the U.K.? The current biggest recipient is Poland and they're worried about our impending departure. I've been there 15 times and have friends there.

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-eu-members-net-contributions-and-net-funding-2016-12

 

Do you also know that in joining the single market, no member is allowed to make its own separate bilateral trade deals with countries outside the single market? Scotland would need a totally open trade deal with rUK as they are its biggest trading partner, nearly double the rest of the World added together.

[coconut doug]

Very good point. Public Sector Pension Costs throughout the UK are a gravy train which is only now being tackled.  Some Public Sector Schemes, such as local Government are funded by Stock Market Investments and so retirees cost the state very little unless it has to step in as Guarantor, which it rarely has to.  But the majority are paid for out of General Taxation and those retirees are now costing us an absolute fortune. With Scotland having 100,000 more Public Servants than its population share would otherwise suggest it should have (see calculations above), you have to imagine there are a commensurate number of extra retirees who would have to be funded.

 

But I should stress that the retirees themselves cannot and should not be criticised. They paid into their schemes in good faith throughout their working lives and in many cases were happy to be paid less than the going market rate for their skills in return for said good pensions.  There will be a good few on here for sure. Good on them.

Public sector employees pay superannuation for their pension rights. It is not a gravy train.

 

In Scotland people die younger and earn less which reduces the overall burden by between 10 and 15%. Same with oap. Demographics are also different in Scotland which will mke pensions much more affordable for the next generation.

 

If we separate who will be responsible for the pensions of those who worked for the British state?

 

Who is going to be responsible for EU pensions when Brexit happens? Seems this is a negotiating point. Now that is a gravy train , often tax free and non contributory.

[redm]

That's not strictly speaking true though

I would change my vote to a "yes"  as long as there is a fiscal plan in place that will NOT see me taxed to hell, have my house devalued, savings depreciated  or pension stiffed even more than it already has.

Is New Scotland "big tax- big welfare"?

Is it "low tax big business"

Are we no nuclear power or more expensive leccy from turbines?

 

I would change my mind but I need a reason why, and I'm not facile enough to do it on the basis of "bad toffs" or some ideological crusade that will leave me literally paying a very high price for a rather less useful passport

 

 

Is this a key element for you? A switch to support for nuclear and a move away from renewables (or wind in particular) would help bring you closer to a pro-independence stance?

The cost of offshore wind has dropped massively in the last few years, it's not far off reaching the same cost per MWh as nuclear if Hinckley Point strike price is anything to go by. 

[Space Mackerel]

Yes I do. Do you know that the EU's budget for doing so will by drastically cut by the loss of its 2nd biggest contributor, the U.K.? The current biggest recipient is Poland and they're worried about our impending departure. I've been there 15 times and have friends there.

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-eu-members-net-contributions-and-net-funding-2016-12

 

Do you also know that in joining the single market, no member is allowed to make its own separate bilateral trade deals with countries outside the single market? Scotland would need a totally open trade deal with rUK as they are its biggest trading partner, nearly double the rest of the World added together.

Ahhhh, this new found buzzword the Yoons come up with now...the UK Single market.

 

Who invented this by the way?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[SwindonJambo]

I get what you are saying there. How did the likes of Bosnia pull it off initially though?

I don't think any Yes supporter is under the illusion, except the mental ones (no jokes on that being all Yes voters...), that if independence happens, the first years will be tough. I liken it to when I first left my parents, money was tight, didn't necessarily know how everyone worked, made some mistakes but ultimately I wouldn't change that independence for the world.

Tbf, the UK deficit was meant to be almost gone, that's why we were going through "austerity " so it's a good job they built up their credit rating when they did because they seem to be terrible with money these days. But I still think there is merit in the argument that in order to really tackle the economic problems Scotland has just now, it needs control of all the levers.

Good, post Alphonse and good that some respectful debate is still possible and not mere mud slinging.

 

I hope Bosnia is not a good comparison! They had Civil War and mass genocides there 20 years ago. I knew things were bad between Nats and Yoons but hopefully not even close to that bad.

 

Your leaving home and managing your own finances analogy is a good one. I have no doubt that Scotland would make the necessary savage surgery to its public finances and hammer itself into shape. The one good thing about an initial lack of a credit rating is that it would be forced to do so, much like a young person leaving home. An open trade deal with rUK would be absolutely crucial given that they receive almost 2/3 of Scotland's exports. So too a good relationship with rUK politically.

 

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/Exports/ESSPublication

 

The EU, at 16% according to the same article are a small cog in the machine really and for me it's a feeble excuse for another Indyref.

If I was a Nat I'd play the long game:

 

Wait to see how Brexit panned out. If a good deal was struck, let it bed in and see how it went. If it went well, and support for Indy rose to a majority consistently then push for an indyref then. Independence won, said open deal with rUK set up and Scotland to get its own currency, initially pegged to the pound but later allowed to float with a Central Bank in Edinburgh.

 

I think the EU is dying. I never want Scotland to join the Euro ever. It's basically the Deutschmark in very thin disguise. One of the rules of the EU single market is that no member can negotiate its own bilateral trade deal like the one the Scotland would need with rUK.

 

Fully agreed about the UK's failure to eliminate its deficit in one parliament . That was a foolish promise made by a very naive Giddy George Osborne when he became Chancellor in 2010. Silly silly boy. The deficit was then ?160bn. They've cut it by around 2/3 but still not got rid of it altogether. With 1 month to go, it's expected to come in at ?52bn for 2016-17

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance

 

I am far from a flag waving Yoonie. I never cheer on England at football, I am anti royalist, an atheist and I hate Rangers (and Celtic). If Indy arrives, I'd be sad but I'd wish those in charge and Scotland's citizens nothing but the very best and I'd hope it's a success.

[frankblack]

But but but we are on 48% at least right now?

 

And there's this too:

 

 

I have no idea who this guy is you quoted, and I doubt many people in the UK will do.

 

The biggest loser for the Yes vote will be the SNP when their (lack of) policies are scrutinised in the run-up to any referendum in say 5 years time.  People won't be fooled by the fantasists agenda of the SNP with no concrete policies on currency, economy, welfare, EU membership, and trade with the rest of the UK.

 

Also, people are sick to the back teeth of Nippy on here foreign trips meeting insignificant lower-ranking politicians or admin clerks in cafes in her quest to gain overseas support for Independence.  The latest being this trip to meet the governor of California to talk about independence and climate change - what is the point when the POTUS is completely opposed?

 

The bottom line is that it will be easy for No to win by simply pointing out how many peoples jobs will be lost.

[Nookie Bear]

 

Your leaving home and managing your own finances analogy is a good one. I have no doubt that Scotland would make the necessary savage surgery to its public finances and hammer itself into shape. The one good thing about an initial lack of a credit rating is that it would be forced to do so, much like a young person leaving home. An open trade deal with rUK would be absolutely crucial given that they receive almost 2/3 of Scotland's exports. So too a good relationship with rUK politically.

 

 

 

 

Good post Swindon but just quickly picking up on this bit: firstly, that surgery of public finances has a clear and direct impact on the daily lives of people of Scotland, many of whom are seeing the effects of this UK-wide policy already. Not suggesting you are not bothered because you are English-based, just that it isn't the kind of policy to embark on lightly.

 

Also, why go through all this effort to ensure Scotland never suffers again under Tory Westminster rule, to immediately go down the same path of cuts?

[Space Mackerel]

Is this a key element for you? A switch to support for nuclear and a move away from renewables (or wind in particular) would help bring you closer to a pro-independence stance?

The cost of offshore wind has dropped massively in the last few years, it's not far off reaching the same cost per MWh as nuclear if Hinckley Point strike price is anything to go by.

Terrible news regarding the March figures for wind power [emoji12]

 

http://www.thenational.scot/news/15198593.Call_for_more_turbines_after_a_record_breaking_March_for_Scotland_s_wind_farms/?ref=twtrec

[SwindonJambo]

Good post Swindon but just quickly picking up on this bit: firstly, that surgery of public finances has a clear and direct impact on the daily lives of people of Scotland, many of whom are seeing the effects of this UK-wide policy already. Not suggesting you are not bothered because you are English-based, just that it isn't the kind of policy to embark on lightly.

 

Also, why go through all this effort to ensure Scotland never suffers again under Tory Westminster rule, to immediately go down the same path of cuts?

I know all that Nookie and am well aware of the impact of said cuts. Even here in Swindon, 80 miles West of London, disaffection with the Westminster bubble is not rare and the cuts are biting hard even here. That's why I'm opposed to Indy as the cuts needed in the early years of an Indy Scotland would be more brutal than anything we've seen already, before hopefully improving later. But I accept that Indy is a real possibility and it worries me how many of their supporters appear to just wrap themselves in the flag, cult-like, blithely unaware of the likely difficulties. Strong leadership and tough choicds would be needed.

[jambo lodge]

 

Public Sector Employment:

 

UK

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/03/7911

 

5.436million

 

Scotland's expected share based on its population of 5.3.million to the UK's 65 million

 

0.443 million

 

Scotland's actual.

 

0.542million

 

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/03/7911

 

I put my hand up and admit I made my point about Public Sector Employment very poorly, for which apologies. A quick calculation on these figures shows that Scotland has around 100,000 more than its population share employed in the Public Sector. Still a lot and my General point stands - Scotland's Public Sector is very big and would be very expensive to maintain, almost certainly requiring big cuts but thankfully it's 100,000 and not the 200,000 I was told by an ex Civil Servant.

 

I am not totally against Scotland breaking away at some point but it has to happen when it's economy is strong and at least equalling rUK in performance. At the moment it most certainly is not sadly.

 

Its not just about the current public sector jobs. What about the vast army pf public sector retirees who all enjoy a lifetime of inflation proof pensions which an independent Scotland would have to fund themselves.

[SwindonJambo]

Its not just about the current public sector jobs. What about the vast army pf public sector retirees who all enjoy a lifetime of inflation proof pensions which an independent Scotland would have to fund themselves.

 

Very good point. Public Sector Pension Costs throughout the UK are a gravy train which is only now being tackled.  Some Public Sector Schemes, such as local Government are funded by Stock Market Investments and so retirees cost the state very little unless it has to step in as Guarantor, which it rarely has to.  But the majority are paid for out of General Taxation and those retirees are now costing us an absolute fortune. With Scotland having 100,000 more Public Servants than its population share would otherwise suggest it should have (see calculations above), you have to imagine there are a commensurate number of extra retirees who would have to be funded.

 

But I should stress that the retirees themselves cannot and should not be criticised. They paid into their schemes in good faith throughout their working lives and in many cases were happy to be paid less than the going market rate for their skills in return for said good pensions.  There will be a good few on here for sure. Good on them.

[jambo lodge]

Public sector employees pay superannuation for their pension rights. It is not a gravy train.

 

In Scotland people die younger and earn less which reduces the overall burden by between 10 and 15%. Same with oap. Demographics are also different in Scotland which will mke pensions much more affordable for the next generation.

 

If we separate who will be responsible for the pensions of those who worked for the British state?

 

Who is going to be responsible for EU pensions when Brexit happens? Seems this is a negotiating point. Now that is a gravy train , often tax free and non contributory.

 

Some public sector employees contribute to their superannuation costs but most " civil service" employees are in a non contributory scheme. 

[Boris]

Some public sector employees contribute to their superannuation costs but most " civil service" employees are in a non contributory scheme.

 

Really?

 

http://www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/members/contribution-rates/

[SwindonJambo]

Public sector employees pay superannuation for their pension rights. It is not a gravy train.

 

In Scotland people die younger and earn less which reduces the overall burden by between 10 and 15%. Same with oap. Demographics are also different in Scotland which will mke pensions much more affordable for the next generation.

 

If we separate who will be responsible for the pensions of those who worked for the British state?

 

Who is going to be responsible for EU pensions when Brexit happens? Seems this is a negotiating point. Now that is a gravy train , often tax free and non contributory.

 

Public Sector Workers do indeed pay supernannuation.  But the current retirees (and of course ALL retirees) in unfunded schemes paid out of general taxation are living much longer than expected when their schemes were designed, leaving a big shortfall which the state picks up.  The original idea was that current employees' superannuation paid the pensions of retirees and and it's not proved sustainable due to the big increase in life expectancy.

 

In Pensions, even in some parts of the Public Sector there's been a shift to defined contributions so that the Superannuation and Employer Contributions are all invested in the Stock Market and the Pension you get depends how your investments perform. After you retire it doesn't cost the state a bean. Nearly all of the Private Sector works that way and has done for some time.

 

There are lots and lots of different Public Sector Schemes, some funded by Managed Stock Market Investments and others by General Taxation and Supernannuation.  They are a big pickle and disentangling it all would be extremely complicated.

 

Oh and btw Zero point zero argument from me about those EU Pensions you speak of

 

Amongst the most generous public sector pensions are those for parliamentarians of all kinds, the very people responsible for reform.  They tend to drag their feet on making changes as they could be accused of hypocrisy and it would be Turkeys voting for Christmas.

[jambo lodge]

Really?

 

http://www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/members/contribution-rates/

 

Just sometimes Sir, you are wrong. There are literally thousands of long living civil servants from the Scottish Office and a host of quangos who are enjoying an inflation proof pension. 

[Boris]

Just sometimes Sir, you are wrong. There are literally thousands of long living civil servants from the Scottish Office and a host of quangos who are enjoying an inflation proof pension.

 

So there are current working civil servants that don't contribute to their pension scheme?

 

In fact the majority of them, as you stated before?

 

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

[jambo lodge]

Terrible news regarding the March figures for wind power [emoji12]

 

http://www.thenational.scot/news/15198593.Call_for_more_turbines_after_a_record_breaking_March_for_Scotland_s_wind_farms/?ref=twtrec

 

The Scottish Government are free to offer different renewable  incentives for new developments but have very firmly ruled that out preferring to leave the UK government to fund existing and future subsidies........they know full well how expensive it would be.   

[jambo lodge]

So there are current working civil servants that don't contribute to their pension scheme?

 

In fact the majority of them, as you stated before?

 

Sorry, but I don't believe you.

 

Not sure about current employees but as I stated , there are literally thousands of well heeled civil servant retirees in Scotland enjoying an inflation proof pension which they did not contribute towards. The annual bill for that would fall to an independent Scotland. 

[SwindonJambo]

Not sure about current employees but as I stated , there are literally thousands of well heeled civil servant retirees in Scotland enjoying an inflation proof pension which they did not contribute towards. The annual bill for that would fall to an independent Scotland. 

 

You risk being shot down in flames for making that claim without quoting a source, but I for one fully believe you are correct.  There are lots here too especially in the village near Swindon where I live. A good few are still going strong after 2 decades of comfortable retirement. These baby boomer types timed their lives perfectly as younger current day employees at the same places of employment get nowhere near the same benefits attached to their pensions (but even so they're still very good by modern standards and well worth having).  It's a huge cost borne by the whole UK and will continue for as long as they live.  But as I said above, I blame and criticise these lucky baby boomers for nothing.  They were made an excellent offer and wisely accepted it.  Back in their day, many Civil Service schemes were indeed non contributory and still were well into the 90s and early noughties.

[jambo lodge]

You risk being shot down in flames for making that claim without quoting a source, but I for one fully believe you are correct.  There are lots here too especially in the village near Swindon where I live. A good few are still going strong after 2 decades of comfortable retirement. These baby boomer types timed their lives perfectly as younger current day employees at the same places of employment get nowhere near the same benefits attached to their pensions (but even so they're still very good by modern standards and well worth having).  It's a huge cost borne by the whole UK and will continue for as long as they live.  But as I said above, I blame and criticise these lucky baby boomers for nothing.  They were made an excellent offer and wisely accepted it.  Back in their day, many Civil Service schemes were indeed non contributory and still were well into the 90s and early noughties.

 

Worked in Scottish Office for many years as did my wife. Can absolutely guarantee that there are thousands in Scotland enjoying a nice inflation proof retirement thank you. If the current civil service scheme is now contributory then changes will have been relatively recently. That means there will still be thousands yet to retire who will also enjoy similar benefits.  

[SwindonJambo]

Worked in Scottish Office for many years as did my wife. Can absolutely guarantee that there are thousands in Scotland enjoying a nice inflation proof retirement thank you. If the current civil service scheme is now contributory then changes will have been relatively recently. That means there will still be thousands yet to retire who will also enjoy similar benefits.  

 

Around 5-10 years ago I remember seeing Job Ads for big Civil Service Employers in this Area (The Scientific Research Councils for one) stating that their scheme was changing so all members up to that time will indeed enjoy similar benefits so the cost burden will continue for several decades before it tails off.  Even with the reduced benefits of the later scheme it's still quite generous really and costly (but a fair bit less so) so almost every new employee still chooses to join the scheme.